Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at Breaking Points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 1: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 1: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 1: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 1: it means the absolute world to have your support. What
Speaker 1: are you waiting for? Become a premium subscriber today at
Speaker 1: Breakingpoints dot com. Hey everyone, welcome to Counterpoints. Ryan is
Speaker 1: back from his fish excursion down south. How are you doing? Ryan? Wonderful?
Speaker 1: I made it back. All's well, it was great and
Speaker 1: you're hanging out with Sager and he can probably still
Speaker 1: smell the smell the weed on you. Yeah, Saga would
Speaker 1: have had a great time. By the end. We have
Speaker 1: totally turned him out. We have an absolutely packed show
Speaker 1: today because of breaking news last night. Lori Lightfoot has
Speaker 1: lost in the Chicago mayor's race. It's not going to
Speaker 1: a runoff. Going to talk about huge new reporting from
Speaker 1: the Intercept that just dropped, I believe. At six am
Speaker 1: we're going to talk about student debt. We're going to
Speaker 1: talk about changes at the World Bank reparations in San
Speaker 1: Francisco as they try to take care of that. We're
Speaker 1: talking about Ron DeSantis, We're talking about Dilbert, We're talking
Speaker 1: about seven oh two and the border crisis. And White
Speaker 1: House reporter Philip Wegman from Real Core Politics, we'll be
Speaker 1: with us to talk about new revelations on this administration's
Speaker 1: approach towards gain a function research. Just huge news across
Speaker 1: the board this week. Ryan, Let's start with Ken's story
Speaker 1: in the Intercept just dropped. Tell us what Ken reported.
Speaker 1: If we can put that tear sheet up there. Basically,
Speaker 1: I'll just read from the top. Ken reports the US
Speaker 1: military allocated spending for secret contingency operations pertaining to an
Speaker 1: Iran war plan. According to a classified Pentagon budget manual
Speaker 1: listing emergency and special programs reviewed by The Intercept, the
Speaker 1: contingency plan, code named Support Century, was funded in twenty
Speaker 1: eighteen and twenty nineteen, according to the manual, which was
Speaker 1: produced for the twenty nineteen fiscal years. So Support century
Speaker 1: is it is a budget line which proves that at
Speaker 1: that time the Pentagon, which would be the Trump administration
Speaker 1: at the time, had decided that they needed to kind
Speaker 1: of ramp up their war planning for potential conflict with Iran,
Speaker 1: which Ken put in the context of the later move
Speaker 1: to put Israel in centcom, which Israel used to be
Speaker 1: in the kind of European considered in the European theater
Speaker 1: of war, and it was when it was moved into
Speaker 1: sent com it became more central to the US war
Speaker 1: plans around the Middle East. And so right at January
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, kind of following this, you have Costum Solomani
Speaker 1: get assassinated by the Trump administration, which ratchets up tensions
Speaker 1: in a way that people worried would lead to a hot,
Speaker 1: if short war. It did not. Then after November twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: there were again tons of reports and now reporting in
Speaker 1: hindsight that we were extremely close to a strike on
Speaker 1: Iran at that point. Now with the Biden administration, this
Speaker 1: is all continue to pace. As you have Iran supporting
Speaker 1: the Russia's war against Ukraine. You also have Israel getting
Speaker 1: increasingly hawkish if you can believe that, towards Iran. And
Speaker 1: for the first time, and Ken talked about this in
Speaker 1: his story, for the first time, you have the United
Speaker 1: States saying essentially that if Israel does decide to do
Speaker 1: something offensive against Iran, then that's Israel's call, where in
Speaker 1: the past the US would say, you know, we encourage restraint.
Speaker 1: Where So all of these pieces are coming together to
Speaker 1: suggest that we're much closer to a hot war with
Speaker 1: Iran than people might realize. And you know, actually it
Speaker 1: goes pretty well with something Walter Russell Mead wrote in
Speaker 1: The Wall Street Journal just this week where he said,
Speaker 1: also that we are closer to war in the Middle
Speaker 1: East than most observers probably realize. And then and that
Speaker 1: the political establishment here in Washington is at least willing
Speaker 1: to admit if they don't kind of understand it or
Speaker 1: talk about it behind closed doors. One question I have
Speaker 1: is about the transition from the Trump administration to the
Speaker 1: Biden administration. So as the Biden administration takes over, what
Speaker 1: did Ken report about how they picked up where the
Speaker 1: Trump administration left off. I mean, essentially have kept it
Speaker 1: moving like that. And that's one of the concerns when
Speaker 1: it comes to foreign policy and aggressive executive action globally
Speaker 1: is that it ratchets only one direction. And now the
Speaker 1: one exception that I can think of what might be
Speaker 1: the Biden administration's draw down of the drone war. That
Speaker 1: was like, you know, ramped up under you know, gun
Speaker 1: under Bush, really ramped up under Obama, accelerated under Trump,
Speaker 1: but then without much discussion and without much media commentary,
Speaker 1: kind of really rolled back. Yeah, it's basically not been used.
Speaker 1: You hear Kate once in a while about a drone
Speaker 1: strike in Somalia or somewhere else like, but it's every
Speaker 1: couple of months. Whereas you know, they were they were,
Speaker 1: there were drone strikes flying constantly during the Trump administrations.
Speaker 1: But otherwise, you know, once once you heat up, it
Speaker 1: just gets moving. And uh, I was, I was thinking
Speaker 1: about the interesting parallels to kind of the Russian people
Speaker 1: and the Russian and Russian politics and the Russian invasion
Speaker 1: of Ukraine. Because as the world watched Russia, you know,
Speaker 1: massing one hundred thousand plus troops on the Ukrainian border
Speaker 1: and then launched an actual evasion, invasion, and then watched
Speaker 1: the Russian people support that invasion, the world was just stunned, like, what, like,
Speaker 1: what is going on here? But if you think about
Speaker 1: the fact that the Russian people had been hit with propaganda,
Speaker 1: you know, for years about the narrative wells over in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: just constant demonization of Ukrainians, that Ukrainians were terrorists, that
Speaker 1: they were that they were that they were in league
Speaker 1: with the United States, that they were fueling all kinds
Speaker 1: of instability in the in the Domebos, that that was actually,
Speaker 1: you know, Ukraine's fault, that they basically want death to
Speaker 1: Russia because of some of the laws that Ukraine would
Speaker 1: pass about the Russian language or rights for rights for Russians.
Speaker 1: And so once it, once it ratcheted up to war,
Speaker 1: the Russian public it's like, we're behind this. And so
Speaker 1: you could imagine a case where the United States would
Speaker 1: it would launch an assault on Iran, and the entire
Speaker 1: world like what are you doing? Like why are you?
Speaker 1: Why are you attacking a sovereign country, and you could
Speaker 1: see the American people support it, and I think because
Speaker 1: the American people have been fed a lot of similar propaganda,
Speaker 1: but all of it also rooted in kernels of truth.
Speaker 1: None of it's completely untrue, it's just how it's spun
Speaker 1: and whips through the public imagination. And just my big
Speaker 1: picture thought on this is it's amazing how a custom
Speaker 1: we've become to doing this kind of extreme war mongering
Speaker 1: behind closed doors basically in the last century of American politics.
Speaker 1: That we're learning about this from Ken's report, and this
Speaker 1: had never been reported before, right, we really had no idea,
Speaker 1: let alone, was their public input via congressional action anything
Speaker 1: like that. Nope, nope, right now I would expect Congress
Speaker 1: to be asking some questions about this now that now
Speaker 1: that this is public, I think, so let's move on
Speaker 1: to Chicago. Lori Lightfoot stunned. I think a lot of
Speaker 1: political observers by not even making the runoff last night
Speaker 1: Chicago mayoral election. In fact, Laurie Lightfoot came in third,
Speaker 1: which is pretty brutal for somebody who swept in I
Speaker 1: went back and actually looked at the coverage after she
Speaker 1: won election. It was a lot of press gushing about
Speaker 1: the first black, female, openly gay Chicago mayor ever to
Speaker 1: be elected. Had so many problems during the pandemic, and
Speaker 1: then associated problems potentially associated problems with crime. Although some
Speaker 1: crime is associated with some associated with crime for sure,
Speaker 1: although some continues to go up, some crime is down.
Speaker 1: Homicides for instance, were down last year, but some sorry
Speaker 1: Carl Jackins, are down. Still a huge problem in Chicago.
Speaker 1: But down right, but theft, robberies, burglery is still increasing
Speaker 1: in Chicago, and she had so many different fights. Just
Speaker 1: the style of Chicago politics, Lauria Lightfoot was getting into
Speaker 1: all kinds of she had initially. There's another interesting thing
Speaker 1: that I was reading in some retrospectives on her time
Speaker 1: in the mayor's office. She had been. She had a
Speaker 1: great quote about how she was offended when somebody compared
Speaker 1: her to Rama Manuel back in the day, and then
Speaker 1: when she became mayor, was just as pugnacious, but perhaps
Speaker 1: not with the same rhyme or reason that Votanuel or
Speaker 1: other Chicago politicians were, and just seemed to be picking
Speaker 1: fights almost arbitralli left and right. You might remember the
Speaker 1: really long Chicago Teachers' union strike. Laurie Lightfoot, by the way,
Speaker 1: came out of a background. She hadn't been an elected
Speaker 1: office before. She had experienced on the police board. Her
Speaker 1: opponent who won, actually who came in first, let alone second.
Speaker 1: The first place opponent of hers was endorsed by the
Speaker 1: local police union. So, I mean, you have a good
Speaker 1: take on this, and I'm curious to hear it, But
Speaker 1: just what a fall from grace right, and so this
Speaker 1: is going to set up a general election that pitts
Speaker 1: a guy Paul Vallis has a support of the police
Speaker 1: and has called himself more a Republican than a Democrat,
Speaker 1: though he's technically registered as a Democrats basically as right
Speaker 1: wing as you can get in Chicago and still be
Speaker 1: considered viable against what arguably would be the most progressive
Speaker 1: mayor of Chicago's ever had, perhaps going back to Harold Washington,
Speaker 1: which is an eerily similar situation in which there was
Speaker 1: a divided field that allowed Harold Washington, who was a
Speaker 1: DSA member and a powerful member of Congress, to sneak
Speaker 1: through with less than fifty percent of the vote, make
Speaker 1: it into the runoff, and then the Democratic machine and
Speaker 1: my book actually kind of starts out, my last book
Speaker 1: actually starts out kind of with this race. The Democratic
Speaker 1: machine sides with the Republican, who in this case was
Speaker 1: an actual Republican, not just a sort of Republican. And
Speaker 1: he only ended up winning by a couple thousand votes,
Speaker 1: but he did win. And so the question then becomes, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, who do this? Where do the Centrists go?
Speaker 1: Wea we faced this question in Los Angeles with the
Speaker 1: Caruso versus Karen Bass race. Karen Bass is not quite
Speaker 1: as progressive as Brandon Johnson. Brandon Johnson kind of up
Speaker 1: and down movement. Progressive comes from comes from a classroom. Uh,
Speaker 1: it comes from the kind of United Working Families, which
Speaker 1: is a WFP kind of branch out in Chicago, with
Speaker 1: the support of DSA out in Chicago, which is an
Speaker 1: which is an undertold story. Just like DSA has had
Speaker 1: and WFPF had a ton of success in New York City,
Speaker 1: they've had probably even more success in organizing constituencies in Chicago,
Speaker 1: and this is a direct product of that organizing work.
Speaker 1: And so the question will be do the Centrist go
Speaker 1: with the Republican is Trump guy? Or do the Centrists
Speaker 1: say no, we're Team Blue and that we Brandon Johnson
Speaker 1: might be too progressive for us, but we'd rather have
Speaker 1: him than the Republican light. So you know it's going
Speaker 1: to be a real contest. This is not this is
Speaker 1: except Caruso collapse at the end. So you could have
Speaker 1: a tight race that totally breaks Johnson's way, or you
Speaker 1: could have a tight race down to the wire. So
Speaker 1: there are so many votes on the table, About seventeen
Speaker 1: percent of people cast their bounce for Lori Lightfoot, So
Speaker 1: that's as opposed to twenty percent for Brandon Johnson in
Speaker 1: thirty three point eight, about thirty four percent for Paul Vallas.
Speaker 1: Now Cheuey Garcia, he's at thirteen percent. Willie Wilson is
Speaker 1: at nine point five percent. So you add those two
Speaker 1: up and that's more votes than Lori Lightfoot, but also
Speaker 1: more than Brandon Johnson. So it's not even just the
Speaker 1: simple math of where the Lightfoot votes will go. There
Speaker 1: are a lot of candidates down ballid at least these two,
Speaker 1: and then you end up from the nine point five
Speaker 1: percent that Wilson got to two point one percent for
Speaker 1: Jamal Green, still significant in a tight race where those
Speaker 1: votes go. So my theory of the case is basically
Speaker 1: that Lori Lightfoot, interestingly was kind of elected as whatever
Speaker 1: people want to call it, wokeness cancel culture was starting
Speaker 1: to peak in this country. She was a little high
Speaker 1: in her own supply, felt really good because got lots
Speaker 1: and lots of media coverage, and the way she governed
Speaker 1: was let's say, I'm trying to think of the right
Speaker 1: word or arrogant. Maybe there was a hubris to the
Speaker 1: way that she decided to govern. Then I think actually
Speaker 1: even surprised people and caught them off guard just the
Speaker 1: fights that she would pick. It seems to have no
Speaker 1: clear political logic at raising behind them, fumbled even on
Speaker 1: race issues, and it did not go well for her.
Speaker 1: It's a tough Chicago's a really tough city to navigate obviously,
Speaker 1: let alone during a pandemic, and there are a lot
Speaker 1: of national problems that contributed to the tensions and issues
Speaker 1: she faced in Chicago. Certainly, there's no question about it.
Speaker 1: But I also don't want to downplay I think the
Speaker 1: spectacular lack of political talent that Lori Lightfoot ultimately demonstrated
Speaker 1: representtive Chewiy Garcia actually Howard Washington supporter back in the day.
Speaker 1: So there's something generational too here, because you could have
Speaker 1: imagined a world where the progressives all coalesced behind Chewy,
Speaker 1: but instead Brandon kind of out organized him and out
Speaker 1: energized them. I suspect almost all of Chewey's support goes
Speaker 1: to Brandon Johnson will get at least half Wilson half
Speaker 1: of Lori Lightfoot, so I think he has the kind
Speaker 1: of upper hand it's amazing. And last point that we'll
Speaker 1: move to the student debt thing. It's amazing to think
Speaker 1: about how much of our national politics kind of flows
Speaker 1: through and originates in Chicago, like Stephen Douglas, Lincoln, the
Speaker 1: Daily Machine, stealing it for John F. Kennedy, then Howard Washington,
Speaker 1: Barack Obama, Rama manual like it. You know, Chicago gets
Speaker 1: overlooked a lot in our national politics, but it probably
Speaker 1: has more influence on our politics than any other city.
Speaker 1: So that I think that makes this insurgency that we're
Speaker 1: witnessing much more relevant because we keep being told that
Speaker 1: now the left is in retreat, and he's like, well,
Speaker 1: what just that Brandon Johnson might become the next mayor
Speaker 1: of Chicago, especially if all those Garcia votes go to him,
Speaker 1: that puts him at the same literally would put him
Speaker 1: at the exact same thirty three percent as ballas right. Well,
Speaker 1: student debt at the Supreme Court this week and the
Speaker 1: oral arguments transpired on Tuesday went pretty much as you
Speaker 1: would expect. Ryan, Yeah, let's put this first one up there.
Speaker 1: This is a challenge, and we talked about this, we
Speaker 1: previewed this yesterday on the show. This is a challenge
Speaker 1: to the Biden plan to cancel ten thousand dollars in
Speaker 1: student debt for everybody making under one hundred and twenty
Speaker 1: five thousand dollars canceled twenty thousand for anybody who was
Speaker 1: getting PEL grants, which makes you know more in need
Speaker 1: of financial support. How much we how much we were
Speaker 1: able to listen to. I caught some of the arguments
Speaker 1: back and forth went on for a couple hours. It
Speaker 1: was basically exactly what I expected to hear from the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Some you know, interesting questions from Amy Coney Barrett,
Speaker 1: who actually asked whether she seems to be questioning whether
Speaker 1: some of the Republican states who brought this challenge to
Speaker 1: the Biden law had the standing to bring the lawsuit.
Speaker 1: Which is a huge question at play here, and this
Speaker 1: is the Attorney's General of Nebraska and Missouri. They were
Speaker 1: arguing the law is meant to allow. This is the
Speaker 1: Heroes Act, which is kind of at the center of
Speaker 1: all of this. The Biden administration argued the Heroes Act
Speaker 1: allowed them to do the debt forgiveness plan. Republican states
Speaker 1: are saying that's ridiculous and it rests on this word
Speaker 1: necessary and Republicans are saying to argue that it was
Speaker 1: necessary in a pandemic emergency to forgive student loan debt
Speaker 1: actually is absurd on its face because you could have
Speaker 1: taken X, Y, and Z other steps to mitigate the
Speaker 1: problems of student loan debt. So there's a lot hinging
Speaker 1: on that word necessary. I did think Amy Cony Barrett
Speaker 1: was interesting that she questioned the standing issue. John Roberts
Speaker 1: and Brett Kavanaugh seemed to be pretty opposed on the
Speaker 1: grounds that it was a spectacular use of power or
Speaker 1: would constitute an expansion of power. Kavanaugh had a great
Speaker 1: quote where he said some of the biggest mistakes in
Speaker 1: the Court's history were deferring to assertions of executive and
Speaker 1: executive or emergency power. And I say that's a great
Speaker 1: quote because whether or not you agree with it, it
Speaker 1: really crystallizes I think where the conservative justices might be
Speaker 1: coming from on this issue. And I think this the
Speaker 1: White House Solicitor General did a good job of making
Speaker 1: the counter argument, but I'm not sure. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: it's going to matter because this might just come down
Speaker 1: as a partisan ruling. But her point was if you
Speaker 1: read the statute and you can look at the Higher
Speaker 1: Education Act, which they could also justify it under, and
Speaker 1: the way that John Roberts did with ACA and kind
Speaker 1: of rewrote the justification for that, that's a good point.
Speaker 1: You could do that, yes, But she also argued for
Speaker 1: it under the Heroes Act, which says, basically, international emergency,
Speaker 1: the executive is given by Congress the authority to modify, wave, cancel, etc.
Speaker 1: These benefit these particular benefit programs as a result of
Speaker 1: an emergency. So her point is that this is not
Speaker 1: executive authority, this is congressional authority. And if you don't
Speaker 1: allow the administration to do this, then you're actually restricting
Speaker 1: congressional power because Congress very explicitly wanted to write into
Speaker 1: the law flexibility for the executive to operate in a
Speaker 1: time of crisis, and she, as she pointed out, precisely
Speaker 1: as President Trump did at the very beginning of the
Speaker 1: pandemic there was a crisis, he implemented a pause, which,
Speaker 1: as she also rightly pointed out, cost much more money
Speaker 1: to the federal government than the Biden plan would. That
Speaker 1: one was hundreds of billions, maybe even a year. And
Speaker 1: nobody was suggesting that that was unconstitutional. Nobody took it
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court didn't pause it. And
Speaker 1: so her point is that now that you've done this,
Speaker 1: as you're coming out of the emergency, you have to
Speaker 1: find a way to kind of resolve and get back
Speaker 1: into a state of normal affairs. So the idea that
Speaker 1: it would be completely legal and constitutional to pause all
Speaker 1: student loan payments, but not constitutional and not legal to
Speaker 1: figure out a way to kind of ease out of
Speaker 1: that as the crisis ends, would be telling Congress that
Speaker 1: they did that they don't have the power to grant
Speaker 1: the executive that that flexibility to fix something like that,
Speaker 1: which actually does then hamsterring Congress because then Congress has
Speaker 1: to Congress can't write laws that the executive is able
Speaker 1: to follow if the Supreme Court can come in and say, well,
Speaker 1: this is actually a really big number. Because that was
Speaker 1: the thing that a lot of the justices were harvingtular, like,
Speaker 1: this is such a huge number. And as the White
Speaker 1: House was pointing out, yeah, we're like a twenty trillion
Speaker 1: dollar economy. When these agencies do something over a ten
Speaker 1: year window, it's going to cost in the billions of dollars.
Speaker 1: And this is what Sonya said, mayor says. She says,
Speaker 1: quote it's an outrageous sum. It's not a question of money,
Speaker 1: it's a question of Congress's intent. Now, Ilia Shapiro in
Speaker 1: City Journal, I think broke down the argument the government
Speaker 1: is making. He disagrees with it, obviously, but he sort
Speaker 1: of walked through the logics he's saying. The governments lawyers
Speaker 1: now make the following assertions before the Supreme Court. The
Speaker 1: pandemic is a national emergency. Every federal student loan borrower
Speaker 1: either lives in a COVID disaster area or has been
Speaker 1: otherwise financially affected by that emergency. As a result of
Speaker 1: that emergency, some borrowers will default on their loans once
Speaker 1: payments finally resume after a multi year pause, and then
Speaker 1: forgiving some or all of the borrowers principal balances will
Speaker 1: ensure their overall risk of default is no worse than
Speaker 1: it was before the pandemic. Now Shapiro, who disagrees with this,
Speaker 1: Ilia Shapiro writes, that doesn't make a lot of sense,
Speaker 1: because a simpler and more direct that is available. If
Speaker 1: the government's purpose were truly to reduce the harm of
Speaker 1: more defaults, it could put borrowers on an income based
Speaker 1: repayment plans and even more simply waive some of the
Speaker 1: legal consequences of miss payments. And I do think that's
Speaker 1: a very difficult thing for the government to grapple with.
Speaker 1: In the same way, I think your point makes a
Speaker 1: lot of sense. And Ilia writes here about how the
Speaker 1: Trump administration's plan for border wall construction and the Biden
Speaker 1: vaccine mandate via the Osha Act both run into the
Speaker 1: same problems here. And this Court has obviously shown a
Speaker 1: willingness to flex its muscles on executive power a little bit.
Speaker 1: The Heroes Act is from two thousand and three and
Speaker 1: it was passed after nine to eleven, and so there's
Speaker 1: a question as to the sort of level of emergency
Speaker 1: power that's being utilized here. But I do think it
Speaker 1: Also here's a good question for you. The West Virginia v.
Speaker 1: EPA ruling comes into play here as well. Is there
Speaker 1: something to learn from the Supreme Court's ruling in that case,
Speaker 1: which I don't know of Barrett actually was on the
Speaker 1: court for But where do you see it? If you
Speaker 1: see a point A to B from West Virginia b
Speaker 1: E p A to this, I think it sounds like
Speaker 1: if a democratic administration is enacting some type of executive action,
Speaker 1: then the Supreme Court, this, this particular Supreme Court is
Speaker 1: going to look askance at it is going to is
Speaker 1: going to argue that you that it's not within their power.
Speaker 1: Like I do, think it's showing the real, the real
Speaker 1: partisan nature of this system at this point. Uh So. Yeah.
Speaker 1: By the way, we got Randy quine Garten who was
Speaker 1: out in front of the Supreme Court yesterday. Let's let's
Speaker 1: roll roll a little bit of her. President Biden said,
Speaker 1: we are going to deal with that as we deal
Speaker 1: with the end of the pandemic. We're going to deal
Speaker 1: with that. We're not going to start student debt again
Speaker 1: without actually making a down payment of it. And the
Speaker 1: Secretary of Education has the right to do it. And frankly,
Speaker 1: and this is where it really pisses me up. During
Speaker 1: the pandemic, we understood it's fall businesses were hurting and
Speaker 1: we help them, and it didn't go to the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court to challenge it. Big businesses were hurting and we
Speaker 1: help them, and it didn't go to the Supreme Points
Speaker 1: to challenge it. All of a sudden, when it's about
Speaker 1: our students, they challenge it, the corporations challenge it, the
Speaker 1: student low leisures challenge it. That is not right, that
Speaker 1: is not fair, And that is what we are fighting
Speaker 1: as well when we say it's also the dust. This
Speaker 1: is a donz of people, and it is a ton
Speaker 1: of people's future, and it isn't that all of your futures.
Speaker 1: I mean, it does feel to me like there's so
Speaker 1: much more nitpicking up democratic policies. Like for Shapiro to say, look,
Speaker 1: there are other ways that the administration could do this
Speaker 1: that would satisfy us constitutionally, it's like, okay, cool, Then
Speaker 1: you win the presidential election and you do it those
Speaker 1: other ways. But just because there might be a way
Speaker 1: that you prefer to do it doesn't mean that the
Speaker 1: other way to do it is unconstitutional. And they also
Speaker 1: might be careful what they wish for, because instead now
Speaker 1: they're just going to go back to a pause for everybody.
Speaker 1: So his argument is unconstitutional in this case, particularly because
Speaker 1: the word necessary means that there are no other options
Speaker 1: that what is necessary to just get away with all
Speaker 1: the debt. And again, like I think that's where justices
Speaker 1: are going to be asking whether or not necessary is
Speaker 1: the proper is it necessitates whether that word and of
Speaker 1: itself necessitates the action of sort of broadly canceling ten
Speaker 1: to twenty thousand, right, But that would suggest that any
Speaker 1: that is, if there's any other option, then the option
Speaker 1: that you chose is not necessary because you could have
Speaker 1: chosen another option. So he could actually make the same
Speaker 1: argument way even if he had picked Shapiro's idea. What
Speaker 1: the necessary means is that it's necessary to do something like,
Speaker 1: it's a crisis. You've got trillions of dollars in student
Speaker 1: debt coming out of this pandemic that was paused. We
Speaker 1: have a giant crisis that we need. Then it's necessary
Speaker 1: for the administration to do something to fix it. What
Speaker 1: that something is is something that then the regulators they
Speaker 1: work up they work up a plan. But if just
Speaker 1: because there are five different ways that you could do it,
Speaker 1: like he could have done fifteen thousand, or he could
Speaker 1: have done five thousand, so it wasn't necessary to do
Speaker 1: ten thousand, could have done fifteen and so would he
Speaker 1: then say, well, that's on constitution because it was it
Speaker 1: wasn't precisely necessary to do ten thousand. But yeah, so
Speaker 1: maybe this ends up actually being good news. For all borrowers,
Speaker 1: because I find it very difficult to believe that the
Speaker 1: Biden administration is going to before the twenty twenty four
Speaker 1: election say okay, Supreme Court, fine, we're just we'll just
Speaker 1: reinstitute all all student loan payments. They'll just continue the
Speaker 1: pause which began under Trump. And then they're the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court to say that, Okay, this was fine under Trump,
Speaker 1: but it's actually illegal under Biden, and then let publicans
Speaker 1: run in twenty twenty four on We're going to reinstitute
Speaker 1: all of your student debt payments by January twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: Vote for US. Well, I think this is what's a
Speaker 1: general problem with Biden that would infuriate me if I
Speaker 1: had student loan debt on the table, because it's a cowardice.
Speaker 1: It's just this milk toast halfway, third way, maybe I
Speaker 1: should say method of approaching student loan debt where there's
Speaker 1: no way that the Biden White House didn't think this
Speaker 1: was got did not realize this was going to get
Speaker 1: hung up in the courts, And so twenty five million
Speaker 1: people of an estimated forty million who would be eligible
Speaker 1: for this had already filled out the applications and signed
Speaker 1: up before this pause hit twenty five million people. I
Speaker 1: think sixteen million got approved even I mean, it's amazing
Speaker 1: letters it said you're approved of an estimated forty million
Speaker 1: in the balance potential forty million beneficiaries of a law
Speaker 1: like this, and so it's he knew that that was
Speaker 1: going to happen, and there are other ways to do
Speaker 1: this Byonna Droy Gray has laid some of them out.
Speaker 1: Higher Education Act is pretty clear. He know, Yeah, the
Speaker 1: executive power is on the table. It's the same thing
Speaker 1: with OSHA, Like that's why they found they used an
Speaker 1: obscure provision in the OSHA Establishing Act to do that,
Speaker 1: and it's the executive power is on the table. I
Speaker 1: don't think it should be in many cases. But I
Speaker 1: think Joe Biden is a coward for doing the halfway
Speaker 1: route that would politically look good at the expense of
Speaker 1: all of these people who are now in the squeeze,
Speaker 1: whose futures are uncertain, and who have tens of thousands
Speaker 1: of dollars in some cases on the table just pending
Speaker 1: in the court system, with no idea where that's going
Speaker 1: to go and no way to plan. Moving on to
Speaker 1: the World Bank, the World Bank. So David Malpus, the
Speaker 1: Trump appointed head of the World Bank, is out being
Speaker 1: replaced by the guy from MasterCard, who is it, longtime
Speaker 1: CEO of MasterCard, A Jay Banga. There he is. I
Speaker 1: actually think it's an amazing story because if we go
Speaker 1: to the second element, then you see some people on
Speaker 1: the right are actually coming out against this. Here's an
Speaker 1: opd from Daniel McCarthy in the New York Posts saying
Speaker 1: World Bank elites put climate policy over developing nations prosperity
Speaker 1: and security. To your point about Malpus, Ryan, there was
Speaker 1: a huge amount of backlash among people in the World
Speaker 1: Bank sort of circles the political level in the United States,
Speaker 1: where an American is generally always in charge of the
Speaker 1: World Bank, that Malpus was not far left enough on
Speaker 1: climate policy, that he wasn't willing to go far enough
Speaker 1: on climate policy as head of the World Bank, and
Speaker 1: wasn't willing to steer their vast resources in that direction.
Speaker 1: Banga is apparently going to be prepped for that. We
Speaker 1: can put the next element up because I think it's
Speaker 1: so hilarious. I went and looked at the website for
Speaker 1: his private equity firm. This is his bio, you can
Speaker 1: see his board affiliations there. He is a co chair
Speaker 1: of the Partnership for Central America, which is Kamala Harris's
Speaker 1: nonsense root causes organization that's supposed to be addressing those
Speaker 1: quote root causes of our immigration crisis. The International Chamber
Speaker 1: of Commerce, he is the honorary chair over there, former
Speaker 1: board member of the Dow inc of Craft of other
Speaker 1: really big places, which I just think is so perfect
Speaker 1: in this case because it's just a great crystallization of
Speaker 1: what it looks like at the World Bank. To come
Speaker 1: in with somebody more progressive, We're going to get a
Speaker 1: pe exec former CEO of MasterCard who is implicated in
Speaker 1: all of these different like the International Chamber of Commerce,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. It just kind of perfect, And
Speaker 1: like Daniel mccarthio is arguing, basically, he's making this kind
Speaker 1: of colonialism from the anti colonialists argument that the climate
Speaker 1: progressives are becoming colonizers of third world countries with these
Speaker 1: kind of debt trap policies. Obviously, I think you can
Speaker 1: make debt trap arguments about the World Bank going back
Speaker 1: for a long time before they pivoted to climate. What
Speaker 1: do you make of this ring. And so the backstory
Speaker 1: on Malpus is that, you know, he was he was
Speaker 1: assumed to want a career in in Republican politics, a
Speaker 1: continuing career in Republican politics, whether it's a cabinet position,
Speaker 1: maybe it's a run for Senate, something along those lines.
Speaker 1: And so he was pressed at this forum I would
Speaker 1: call a climate denier by Al Gore. And he was
Speaker 1: pressed at this forum, do you believe that greenhouse gases
Speaker 1: are contributing you know, man made greenhouse gases are contributing
Speaker 1: to climate change? And he wouldn't answer the question, like
Speaker 1: three or four times in a row. And the assumption
Speaker 1: from the people who around him was this is him
Speaker 1: playing gop politics at this point, because he feels like
Speaker 1: if he says this on a stage with a bunch
Speaker 1: of global elites, then he's cooked. He'll be he'll be
Speaker 1: fried by Tucker Carlson and the whole You know, he's
Speaker 1: and he's done. And on the other hand, at that
Speaker 1: point was he was done internally because the idea that
Speaker 1: climate change exists and is a product of you know,
Speaker 1: man made greenhouse gases is no longer controversial, right, and
Speaker 1: for him to not be able to say that like
Speaker 1: really freaked a lot of people out and made them
Speaker 1: really think about, like, what what's this? Is this guy
Speaker 1: here for the World Bank or what or is he
Speaker 1: here for some other resume building purpose. And so basically
Speaker 1: the writing was on the wall like at that at
Speaker 1: that point that he was he was not long for
Speaker 1: the World Bank World But you're you're right that it is.
Speaker 1: It is fascinating that the World Bank, which can choose
Speaker 1: between well to be the most generous, choose between alleviating
Speaker 1: poverty and actually pursuing development, which throughout its history has
Speaker 1: gone hand in hand with you know, corporate profits and
Speaker 1: has propped up a lot of corruption around around the world,
Speaker 1: corruption that then kind of enriches and buttresses US hegemony.
Speaker 1: But let's say it's it's about actually about development and
Speaker 1: alleviation that and or climate change, because it's also the
Speaker 1: case that the world's poor are the ones that are
Speaker 1: going to be the ones who suffer the most from
Speaker 1: the effects of climate change. So you can't completely disentangle
Speaker 1: the pursuit of a climate agenda with the alleviation of
Speaker 1: poverty and the support for people around the world. Because
Speaker 1: the number one cushion against climate change, the number one
Speaker 1: mitigation as wealth. Yeah, and that's why this is such
Speaker 1: a particularly like this is an incredibly tough issue because
Speaker 1: the world's poor historically are also those who benefit the
Speaker 1: most from industrialization, which is exactly what And that's not
Speaker 1: an argument for just blanket industrialization, but it is to say,
Speaker 1: a lot of the climate policies and this is what
Speaker 1: the right objects to, would stop and halt industrializing progress
Speaker 1: in some of these I shouldn't even use the word
Speaker 1: progress so flippantly, as it has been done throughout history.
Speaker 1: But the industrialization or if industrialists, let's use the word
Speaker 1: progress for the sake of argumentation in some of those countries.
Speaker 1: And is that fair when it's coming from the World Bank,
Speaker 1: which built itself on you know, this is billions and
Speaker 1: billions of dollars from industrialized countries basically, who then want
Speaker 1: to come in and stop other countries from enjoying the
Speaker 1: fruits of the same technology and infrastructure that they benefited from.
Speaker 1: They amassed their world power on the back of industrialization,
Speaker 1: and now they're turning around and saying no. Basically, if
Speaker 1: it's implemented poorly, in the worst case scenario, it looks
Speaker 1: a lot like that. Now that's not to say there
Speaker 1: isn't a best case scenario that should be strived for,
Speaker 1: but you know, this is extremely I'm surprised this hasn't
Speaker 1: gotten as much play in the media because the World
Speaker 1: Bank obviously is in charge of billions and billions of
Speaker 1: dollars of disbursements. This is their active portfolio as of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one. I'm looking at about ninety seven point
Speaker 1: six billion dollars to Africa, fifty seven point five billion
Speaker 1: of South Asia, essays in the Pacific thirty seven zero
Speaker 1: point five billion, Latin America and the Caribbean also around
Speaker 1: thirty billion. So obviously, obviously the new head of the
Speaker 1: World Bank is in charge of a ton, just a
Speaker 1: ton of money, and I can see his leadership there
Speaker 1: becoming something of a lightning run. Yeah, And it's it's
Speaker 1: true that the global pore are generally, you know, the
Speaker 1: beneficiaries of development. As you know, if you if you
Speaker 1: bring in more projects and you make accessibility to electricity easier.
Speaker 1: At the same time, they also always bear the brunt
Speaker 1: of those those projects, whether it was the massive coal
Speaker 1: plant in India that the that the World Banks kind
Speaker 1: of ombudsman found had been in violation all of all
Speaker 1: of their different compliance recommendations and destroyed fisheries, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Or it's they built this hydro electric dam
Speaker 1: and I forget, I forget which Latin American country it
Speaker 1: was in, but basically already and it's barely coming online
Speaker 1: and already it's it's running out of water because they
Speaker 1: just completely botched the whole thing, destroyed, destroyed an ecosystem
Speaker 1: and don't not even get going to get the electricity
Speaker 1: out of it. So you know that it had been
Speaker 1: proposed that, well, maybe another option for the World Bank
Speaker 1: is just to shut down, and maybe we'll get there
Speaker 1: and maybe it won't be such a bad thing. I
Speaker 1: started the block by saying, it was interesting to see
Speaker 1: the McCarthy piece in the New York Post, But some
Speaker 1: segments of the right have been interested in this question
Speaker 1: about the World Bank for a long time, but it
Speaker 1: hasn't really gotten a lot of play. And I actually
Speaker 1: think that's about to change, especially to your point about
Speaker 1: Malpas being hesitant to weigh in on climate change. I
Speaker 1: really want to run We're running a little along here,
Speaker 1: but I really want to run this clip of Ron Paul.
Speaker 1: I think this is from two thousand and seven, just
Speaker 1: laying into the Paul Wolfowitz era of the World Bank.
Speaker 1: Established and managed by a multitude of national governments. The
Speaker 1: World Bank promotes managed trade by which politically connected individuals
Speaker 1: and corporations enriched themselves at the expense of the poor
Speaker 1: and the middle class. Western governments tax their citizens to
Speaker 1: fund the World Bank, lend US money to corrupt Third
Speaker 1: World dictators who obscound with the funds, and then demand repayment,
Speaker 1: which is extracted through taxation from the poor Third World
Speaker 1: citizens rather than from the government officials who responsible for
Speaker 1: the embezzlement. It is, in essence a global transfer of
Speaker 1: wealth from the poor to the rich. So if if
Speaker 1: the right wants to start talking about the problems of elites,
Speaker 1: if they want to start talking about demos in the
Speaker 1: World Economic Forum and the World Bank, Seriously, you take
Speaker 1: a page out of Ron Paul's book here. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: I first got politicized during the air of anti Globalization,
Speaker 1: which was protesting the World Bank IMF wto so Ron Paul,
Speaker 1: no Liae's detected there. Moving on to a story that
Speaker 1: you wanted to cover. San Francisco is debating reparations of
Speaker 1: five million dollars for each black resident, with a lot
Speaker 1: of caveats and requirements that you'd have to meet to
Speaker 1: get that. I don't think it's anywhere near being accomplished,
Speaker 1: but it's pretty far along the process, it seems. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're debating it right now. This is from the Washington Post. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're trying to figure out how much San Francisco, where,
Speaker 1: by the way, slavery was never actually legal, should pay
Speaker 1: black residents for decades of discrimination. So there's a panel
Speaker 1: that was appointed by the government they're trying to come
Speaker 1: up with They're not looking at like a mathematical formula,
Speaker 1: as the Washington Post puts it, but they're just trying
Speaker 1: to come up with something that makes sense. Fifteen members
Speaker 1: of that panel. They've been doing this for about a
Speaker 1: year and a half. Here's an example from the Post.
Speaker 1: Also going back to the sixties in San Francisco, they
Speaker 1: say city leaders demolished part of the Fillmore District, a
Speaker 1: neighborhood once done as the Harlem of the West, displacing
Speaker 1: eight hundred and eighty three businesses and twenty thousand people,
Speaker 1: most of them black. Decades later, thousands of people remain
Speaker 1: displaced and the neighborhood has turned into a predominantly white
Speaker 1: enclave of multi million dollar homes. That much is definitely true,
Speaker 1: Which doesn't that point at the actual solution. The homes
Speaker 1: are there, Let the people who are run out of
Speaker 1: the neighborhood move into those homes, right redistribute the homes there.
Speaker 1: We go to see how Nancy Pelosi feels about that
Speaker 1: she's got other homes. That's true. The proposed this is
Speaker 1: more from the police reparations program, is not a recompense
Speaker 1: for slavery, which was nover legal in San Francisco. But
Speaker 1: instead the committee's report says, this is what we're just
Speaker 1: talking about, quote for the public, policies explicitly created to
Speaker 1: subjugate black people in San Francisco by upholding and expanding
Speaker 1: the intent and legacy of chattel slavery. They say that
Speaker 1: black residents in the city of San Francisco have a
Speaker 1: medium median income of about forty four thousand. That compares
Speaker 1: with eighty five thousand for Latinos, one hundred and five
Speaker 1: thousand for agents, and one hundred and thirteen thousand for
Speaker 1: white residents. According to twenty twenty one census data. So
Speaker 1: lest you think that this is sort of a redistribution
Speaker 1: from other minorities to black residents, the argument here is
Speaker 1: they actually have a median income that is much lower
Speaker 1: than other minorities the city of San Francisco, So there's
Speaker 1: some justification to be found there. I think, you know,
Speaker 1: this is an incredibly difficult question because it's not a
Speaker 1: federal program of reparations for slavery. It's then expanding the
Speaker 1: definition of what constitutes reparation worthy policies. There's no doubt,
Speaker 1: there's no question that there's a history in just about
Speaker 1: every major American city of policies that were not explicitly racist,
Speaker 1: but we're intentionally racist. And I think you know, there's
Speaker 1: there's a really obvious question of how we deal with
Speaker 1: that when it's still having effects that to borrow phrase
Speaker 1: trickle down into the community. But it's a I mean this,
Speaker 1: the precedent that San Francisco can set here is pretty big.
Speaker 1: And speaking of trickle down, the problem that a lot
Speaker 1: of reparations advocates, you know, have with this type of
Speaker 1: approach is that they will say, and I agree with them,
Speaker 1: that if you don't if you don't fix the systemic
Speaker 1: abuses and systemic racism that that are producing the need
Speaker 1: to do this and to talk about this. Then it's
Speaker 1: then it's pointless. What it is is basically filling a
Speaker 1: bucket with a hole still on the bottom of it.
Speaker 1: It's like, aire, can you set into it? You get
Speaker 1: out of it? Right? And so you would give out
Speaker 1: five million dollars, but if you didn't, but if you
Speaker 1: didn't kind of reorient your system into a into a
Speaker 1: social democracy in which everyone has opportunity, then you're ten, fifteen,
Speaker 1: twenty years from now, you're going to be back. You're
Speaker 1: going to be back in the same place. And so
Speaker 1: in some ways, I think talking about reparations gets elite
Speaker 1: support because it doesn't touch the more fundamental structures. And
Speaker 1: also they're pretty sure that it's not going to happen.
Speaker 1: And I think this article is important and this this
Speaker 1: debate in San Francisco is important to understand in the
Speaker 1: context of this next story for you to put up
Speaker 1: C two, which is from NBC News where they say
Speaker 1: diversity roles disappear three years after George Floyd's murder inspired them.
Speaker 1: In the article against diversity, equity and inclusion. Leaders who
Speaker 1: were hired in waves to help companies achieve an ethnically
Speaker 1: balanced workforce after George Floyd's murder in twenty twenty, are
Speaker 1: being phased out. Surveys indicate, leaving experts in the field
Speaker 1: concerned that corporations talk of affecting change was empty words.
Speaker 1: They also point out an extraordinary irony that of the
Speaker 1: remaining uh DEI executives, many of them are white, because
Speaker 1: those were the folks that got in there first, because
Speaker 1: we because we do have the problems that people are
Speaker 1: pointing out, like why on earth would you have so
Speaker 1: many white diversity executives if we didn't, if we didn't
Speaker 1: have a structural, fundamental problem with racism and diversity in
Speaker 1: this country, Like there's no there's no better example of
Speaker 1: it than that. And so as a result, it's the
Speaker 1: first in, first out kind of first in, last out situation,
Speaker 1: a last in, first out. If you're the last diverse
Speaker 1: the officer in. As soon as times get tough and
Speaker 1: nobody's watching you as closely anymore, and you've sort of
Speaker 1: suppressed a lot of your slack uprisings and you're not
Speaker 1: as concerned about the staff revolts anymore, you have more
Speaker 1: freedom to maneuver. Then you're like, you know what this
Speaker 1: line item getting rid of this, And so now they're
Speaker 1: laying off a bunch of adversity officers with without necessarily,
Speaker 1: you know, solving the problem that they were brought in
Speaker 1: to solve, right, And it's kind of going to be
Speaker 1: interesting to see what those This is a good experiment
Speaker 1: in what those diversity officers were bringing to the table
Speaker 1: in the first place, because if they go I'm really
Speaker 1: curious as to how that plays out. You know, is
Speaker 1: there any noticeable difference in workplace culture for the better
Speaker 1: or the worse. We're about to find that out in
Speaker 1: a fairly big way. And one of the problems, I
Speaker 1: think in general with this conversation, and that's one thing
Speaker 1: that the San Francisco policy discussion is testing, is how
Speaker 1: we define what is the sort of consensus definition of racism.
Speaker 1: And obviously that has been a problem throughout American history.
Speaker 1: There are plenty of people who were just open overt racists.
Speaker 1: There were other people that acted like open overt racists
Speaker 1: that did not see themselves as racists. Now, so that's
Speaker 1: not to say this is a new thing that's just
Speaker 1: suddenly happening, But in the last two decades or so,
Speaker 1: what we've kind of come to understand is, as obviously
Speaker 1: racial discrimination is obviously acting on this belief that people
Speaker 1: are inferior based on the color of their skin, and,
Speaker 1: to quote Martin Luther King, not the content of their character.
Speaker 1: Then you get into a situation where we're asking whether
Speaker 1: certain policies, you know, some of these in San Francisco,
Speaker 1: for instance, the ones that the Washington Post sided obviously
Speaker 1: had racist consequences, no question about it. If you set
Speaker 1: a precedent that reparations are in order for policies that
Speaker 1: were not explicitly racist but had racist consequences, Man, is
Speaker 1: that going to open up the door and open up
Speaker 1: the floodgates to a really big conversation about where public
Speaker 1: money is going. I just think that's you know, especially
Speaker 1: we're going to talk later in the show about Angela
Speaker 1: Davis who discovered she was related distantly to people who
Speaker 1: came over on the Mayflower. I think that kind of
Speaker 1: makes our ability to deal with some difficult realities very hard.
Speaker 1: And this reminds me of a recent article in The
Speaker 1: Intercept by Alice Sperry that uncovered that a top diversity
Speaker 1: executive if you saw this at this Quaker organization was
Speaker 1: actually white and was claiming to be I think a
Speaker 1: combination of Arab and Latina. It's an amazing story which
Speaker 1: apparently shouldn't have to do though, because according to this
Speaker 1: NBC News stat it says another survey showed that black
Speaker 1: employees represent only three point eight percent of chief diversity
Speaker 1: officers overall, while white people, with white people making up
Speaker 1: seventy six percent of the roles, those of Hispanical Latina
Speaker 1: ethnicity make up seven point eight percent, in those of
Speaker 1: Asian and ethnicity make up seven point seven percent. So
Speaker 1: the three quarters of the diversity executives in this country
Speaker 1: are white. Yeah, which just let's just sit with them. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and they're now firing their deputy they're black and brown deputies. Yeah,
Speaker 1: of course they are, and there's no surprise to that.
Speaker 1: But it is a good reminder to your point about
Speaker 1: how even reparations, let alone DEI, can be used as
Speaker 1: a cop out or smoke screen. That's what a lot
Speaker 1: of this is, and a lot of these conversations are
Speaker 1: the most divisive and politically charged among everything that we
Speaker 1: talk about. They're the ones that have people at each
Speaker 1: other's throats. They're the ones that tear people apart and
Speaker 1: definitely don't bring them together. And they're the ones that
Speaker 1: ultimately are basically like the little shiny things that powerful
Speaker 1: people want to dangle in front of the conversation rather
Speaker 1: than making structural changes or making real concessions in that
Speaker 1: because it's it's just easier for them and they don't
Speaker 1: suffer the consequences necessarily, right, and to me, the only
Speaker 1: the only real answer is a is a coalition of white, black,
Speaker 1: and brown working class people who overthrow those white diversity
Speaker 1: officers and like and and recreate a social a social
Speaker 1: democracy based on their shared interests sees the means of diversity.
Speaker 1: Now there you go, there you go. All right, Well,
Speaker 1: let's talk speaking of die as She's let's talk about
Speaker 1: another story involving Governor Ron Desanta's down in Florida. We
Speaker 1: can put up the first element for this one. Politico
Speaker 1: got Win that the basically de Santa's administration as it
Speaker 1: is required to or as it is its business and
Speaker 1: its responsibility to organize and oversee events at the Florida
Speaker 1: State Capitol, is requiring those events quote align with its mission.
Speaker 1: That can mean a lot of different things. That can
Speaker 1: mean a lot a lot of different things. I'm reading
Speaker 1: from Politico here. I say, one material change to the
Speaker 1: rule is that events must align with state agency missions
Speaker 1: and applications must come from an agency sponsor. This is
Speaker 1: according to a Department of Management Services letter that political
Speaker 1: got from multiple groups that were trying to plan events
Speaker 1: at the Capitol. Then once a sponsorship has been obtained,
Speaker 1: according to this letter, the state agency shall submit the
Speaker 1: required application to DMS on behalf of the requester. There's
Speaker 1: a couple of interesting things in the story. I'm going
Speaker 1: to give DeSantis' response. He was asked at a press
Speaker 1: conference here. He said, we've been very supportive of people
Speaker 1: being able to speak their mind. It's the right they
Speaker 1: should do it. But we've also said, you know, you
Speaker 1: don't have a rite to hijack and do like a
Speaker 1: Heckler's veto and stop the functioning of government. And so
Speaker 1: I think that's probably what it is. But our folks
Speaker 1: can follow up with you about more very quickly. My
Speaker 1: take on this. The Politico article says that this has
Speaker 1: been an effect for a few months. There's no evidence
Speaker 1: that this was used to banner discriminate against anyone in
Speaker 1: those few months. And also on top of that, there's
Speaker 1: this idea that as Desanta's is saying, if it aligns
Speaker 1: with the mission, that can just be the sort of
Speaker 1: general mission of the state to host events and politics,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. So I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's possible that this can be used in nefarious ways.
Speaker 1: There's no question about it. That align word is obviously
Speaker 1: important here. At the same time, there's just no evidence
Speaker 1: that this has been used in nefarious ways yet. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just an open question. And it does
Speaker 1: I guess it seems to fit a pattern of DeSantis
Speaker 1: really wanting control over so many aspects of Florida life,
Speaker 1: you know, from from the classroom to Disney, to the
Speaker 1: villages to what goes on you know, who's allowed to
Speaker 1: have a luncheon at the capitol. It does seem like
Speaker 1: this this is a real driving focus for him, which should,
Speaker 1: at least on the surface, cut against his like kind
Speaker 1: of free speech warrior thing. It's there's a I can
Speaker 1: see how a culture in the governor's office is actually
Speaker 1: kind of interesting could evolve from this idea that Republicans
Speaker 1: now need to be more aggressive about seizing government power
Speaker 1: and using it for their own ideological ends, because that's
Speaker 1: what the left has done for decades and decades, as
Speaker 1: many conservatives feel acutely, and Rondosantis is really the poster
Speaker 1: boy of somebody who's finally, after decades, conservatives say, acting
Speaker 1: on that using government power to advance his own ideological ends,
Speaker 1: not just remaining sort of neutral and saying well, let
Speaker 1: the marketplace of ideas sort this all out, saying no,
Speaker 1: we have government power to advance the ideology. The left
Speaker 1: owns all of these different cultural institutions. So if you
Speaker 1: have the power, use the power, so I can see
Speaker 1: how something would develop from that. I highly doubt Rondosantis,
Speaker 1: even if even if this was nefarious, it had infarious
Speaker 1: intentions behind this rule. I doubt Randasantis would have been
Speaker 1: involved in discussions about it. Maybe he would have, but
Speaker 1: you can see, and this is a general fear I
Speaker 1: think on the right that there's a something really dark
Speaker 1: that evolves from that kind of cultural shift about how
Speaker 1: we use government power. I do want to say, though
Speaker 1: I don't have any like in this case. I think
Speaker 1: it's just an open question if there were evidence that
Speaker 1: it had been used problematically, I'd be all about it.
Speaker 1: I had a problem with his like stop woke act,
Speaker 1: even though I sort of generally like the thrust of it.
Speaker 1: I not you have no problems speaking out against DeSantis
Speaker 1: when I think he goes too far. But this is
Speaker 1: to me a giant open question. It doesn't seem like
Speaker 1: there's a problem yet, and the political article is quoting lobbyists,
Speaker 1: so it sounds like lobbyists fed this article to Politico.
Speaker 1: Politico didn't have any you know, reason or examples of problems,
Speaker 1: but it's perfectly newsworthy in respect. There could be problems
Speaker 1: down the line. Does Dosantis ever back down or does
Speaker 1: he have kind of a bunker circle the wagons campaign mentality?
Speaker 1: Because I could I could see a case where it's
Speaker 1: a good question. It might not actually be anything nefarious
Speaker 1: going on here, but if the lamestream media or the
Speaker 1: fake news media is accusing him of doing something, then
Speaker 1: he's going to dig in and just keep doing it,
Speaker 1: even if he's like, yeah, actually I wouldn't have done
Speaker 1: it that way if but now you've called me on it,
Speaker 1: I'm doing it that way. That's always a huge problem
Speaker 1: and one that I think gets overlooked I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't think I've really seen that happen with DeSantis
Speaker 1: because everything that's sort of sparked debate he's kind of
Speaker 1: doubled down on. I haven't really, but not in that
Speaker 1: sense like he's just said, he hasn't budged in either direction.
Speaker 1: He hasn't pushed up further or hasn't you know, gone
Speaker 1: closer towards the center. We should put up the second
Speaker 1: element here. He's making appearances in some interesting states, Davenport
Speaker 1: and Des Moines, Nevada, Manchester, New Hampshire. An appearance in
Speaker 1: South Carolina is also being discussed, according to The New
Speaker 1: York Times, coincidence. Yeah, he likes the weather there. Yeah,
Speaker 1: loves the weather in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South
Speaker 1: Carolina just places this time of year. So obviously he
Speaker 1: hasn't announced anything. Donald Trump is announced, NICKI Haley is announced.
Speaker 1: There are other people exploring bids, potentially Tim Scott, potentially
Speaker 1: Mike Pompeo. It looks like definitely Mike Pompeo, but nothing
Speaker 1: has has been formally announced. It seems like the writing
Speaker 1: is pretty much on the wall for DeSantis, although it's
Speaker 1: possible there was a poll the other day is showing
Speaker 1: him down like fifteen percent to Donald Trump. It's possible.
Speaker 1: He's sort of savvy enough, and I think he is
Speaker 1: obviously very savvy. Whether or not you like him, he's
Speaker 1: made himself really popular on the right, coming from a
Speaker 1: position really of obscurity while he was here in the House,
Speaker 1: he was a Freedom Caucus member, and what Donald Trump
Speaker 1: made him? So Donald Trump? I mean there's but yeah.
Speaker 1: So he's a talented politician at the very least, and
Speaker 1: that could be a reason he sees the writing on
Speaker 1: the wall maybe backs out of a potential race if
Speaker 1: he sees Donald Trump has pretty much consolidated everything. I
Speaker 1: doubt that that will be the case, but I think
Speaker 1: we'll probably find out sooner rather than later. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: last question for you, is he too short to run
Speaker 1: for president? How dare you? Is spoken as a band
Speaker 1: in the six foot range? Yeah, I mean, we haven't
Speaker 1: elected a short president basically, like ever. Do we know
Speaker 1: how short he is? Like five to seven? What do
Speaker 1: you think does he have does he have taller vibes?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I would guess he's probably like five
Speaker 1: to ten. We'll have to investigate this, Yeah, we're on
Speaker 1: top of this. We will, we will get an update
Speaker 1: and bring it to you shortly. Let's move on to
Speaker 1: the continuing fallout for Scott Adams. Big news in Dilbert
Speaker 1: world are used. I used to read it, like in
Speaker 1: high school or whatever one when it was in the comics.
Speaker 1: Sure I read Yeah, it's fine. I'm not. I've never
Speaker 1: understand I've never understood the appeal of Dilbert, honestly, but
Speaker 1: it's got like bosses suck, office life sucks, and it's
Speaker 1: funny like that that make funny jokes in the office,
Speaker 1: Like I haven't. I really haven't since high school. I
Speaker 1: don't think I've actually read it with any consistency. Yeah,
Speaker 1: well that's big news though, because he does. Scott Adams
Speaker 1: does have a lot of He had a lot of
Speaker 1: money on the table, He had a lot of deals,
Speaker 1: and obviously it is true that some of those had
Speaker 1: already gone away before this most recent karfuffle, but he
Speaker 1: did say he was reacting to a poll and this
Speaker 1: is what just kicked off this most recent round of
Speaker 1: controversy that saw Andrews McNeill Universal, that's his syndication company.
Speaker 1: They syndicate Dilbert totally cut time, publishers dumping his book,
Speaker 1: publishers dumping his book, and newspapers around the country dumping
Speaker 1: the strip. He basically said that black Americans were quote
Speaker 1: a hate group and that white people should quote get
Speaker 1: the hell away from them. And we can keep moving
Speaker 1: through the elements here because he was reacting to a
Speaker 1: RAS Music poll basically, and Elon musk Way did on
Speaker 1: this and said, basically, the media is racist because they dropped.
Speaker 1: Yet you can see that tweet there. He was responding
Speaker 1: to the whole thing about the media weighing in on
Speaker 1: Scott Adams and said the media is racist. So he
Speaker 1: doesn't say whether or not he thinks Scott what Scott
Speaker 1: Adams said was racist, but says, you know the people
Speaker 1: here that are casting the stone. It's a clever way
Speaker 1: to signal support for Scott Adams without actually supporting him.
Speaker 1: Maybe or maybe I read that maybe he's saying you
Speaker 1: shouldn't be casting stones from a glasshouse if you're also right,
Speaker 1: and we don't know, but I'll that's totally fair read
Speaker 1: on it too. But if we put up the rasp
Speaker 1: musen tear shoots here. Adams was responding to this poll
Speaker 1: and one thing I think is interesting. Look on the
Speaker 1: right of your screen. There. I'm going to read it
Speaker 1: for people listening. Rasp Musen tweeted, the Anti Defamation League
Speaker 1: has labeled quote It's okay to be white as hate speech,
Speaker 1: but a majority of all Americans agree with the statement,
Speaker 1: including fifty three percent of Black adults and sixty nine
Speaker 1: percent of Democrats. Only twenty six percent of black adults disagree.
Speaker 1: So what Adams was saying is that chunk of black
Speaker 1: adults that disagree. So see where ras Musen frames it
Speaker 1: as glass half full right, that most Americans don't disagree
Speaker 1: with this the statement. Even though the ADL says that's
Speaker 1: a hate speech it's okay to be white. Most Americans
Speaker 1: agree it's okay to be white, glass half full. Scott
Speaker 1: Adams comes in and makes his comments, which he sort
Speaker 1: of tried to soft pedal after the whole cancelation thing,
Speaker 1: but then said I want nothing to do with my cancellors,
Speaker 1: blah blah blah. He has a fairly popular podcast. He
Speaker 1: was saying that chunk of black Americans that disagrees it's
Speaker 1: okay to be white is a hate group and you
Speaker 1: shouldn't live by them. If you're white, which is just
Speaker 1: a toxic and just a toxic and ridiculous thing to say.
Speaker 1: But I do think that contacts got lost in the
Speaker 1: media conversation about it. He was talking about this pole, right,
Speaker 1: but then he did broaden out, and most of the
Speaker 1: articles have included this quote. So he said, so, if
Speaker 1: nearly half of all blacks are not okay with white
Speaker 1: people according to this pole, not according to me, According
Speaker 1: to this pole, that's a hate group. I don't want
Speaker 1: to have anything to do with them. So, okay, he's
Speaker 1: still talking about that group there, and then he says,
Speaker 1: and I would say, based on the current way things
Speaker 1: are going, the best advice I would give to white
Speaker 1: people is to get the hell away from black people.
Speaker 1: Just get the f away, because there is no fixing this.
Speaker 1: So he very quickly jumps to just quote, get the
Speaker 1: hell away from black people. And this one is, you know,
Speaker 1: as somebody who's kind of skeptical of the cancel culture impulse,
Speaker 1: I also do believe that people have a fundamental right
Speaker 1: to be offended by someone and not want to, you know,
Speaker 1: spend money on them. And if companies believe that there
Speaker 1: are going to be millions of people who feel that way,
Speaker 1: they do have a right to to say, look, I'm
Speaker 1: done with your book. We're not going to distribute your cartoon.
Speaker 1: This is disgusting, and also it's going to be bad
Speaker 1: for business. So I think, like the the arguments about
Speaker 1: cancel culture in general aren't really ever about the general idea. Like,
Speaker 1: I think everybody agrees with the idea that culture is
Speaker 1: created by setting boundaries around what is acceptable and not
Speaker 1: acceptable and that and that's gone on for thousands of years.
Speaker 1: That's how we produce humanity and society. And so what
Speaker 1: we're really always debating is whether or not people are
Speaker 1: being too sensitive and this thing is on this side
Speaker 1: of the line, or this should be on this side
Speaker 1: of the line. But everybody pretty much agrees that there's
Speaker 1: that there's a line. It's it's and there should be
Speaker 1: and there should be. But it's all it's a question
Speaker 1: where you draw the line. And basically, for this one
Speaker 1: close you know, close to got to be ninety five
Speaker 1: plus percent of the country, it is like, yeah, that's
Speaker 1: why that's not even close to the line. I can't
Speaker 1: even see the line from there. Yeah, and you're right.
Speaker 1: He goes from making the semantic argument about what constitutes
Speaker 1: a quote hate group and saying, you know, if you
Speaker 1: have twenty six percent of Black Americans thinking though with
Speaker 1: those that make Black Americans hate group. First of all, no,
Speaker 1: if twenty six percent of people think something, it doesn't
Speaker 1: make the one hundred percent categorically a haterere And you
Speaker 1: can say, hey, that twenty six percent really hurts my
Speaker 1: feelings that you go ahead and say that, or there's
Speaker 1: some problem in our culture that is, you know, engendering
Speaker 1: this or making this increase. You know, if there's if
Speaker 1: you're seeing an increase in that number, then yeah, that's
Speaker 1: not a good thing. But for him to make that jump,
Speaker 1: I think is a real, obviously real problem. And to
Speaker 1: your point about cancel culture, Yeah, we've we've always had
Speaker 1: sort of consensus, and sometimes in the wrong direction. If
Speaker 1: we're thinking about like academia during the McCarthy era, where
Speaker 1: there's sometimes been a consensus in the wrong direction about
Speaker 1: where those boundaries are. There has generally even the most
Speaker 1: free speech absolutists generally draw the line at incitement or
Speaker 1: like actual cost to blind anything like that. So yes,
Speaker 1: I think we all do agree on that, and this
Speaker 1: is a good case study. I will say, I if
Speaker 1: what Elon Musk is saying that is that the media
Speaker 1: and the left are in no position to be casting
Speaker 1: stones because they're in a glass house. If that was
Speaker 1: his argument, which I don't know, it's sort of a
Speaker 1: charitable reading of what he said. But if that's the case,
Speaker 1: I am one hundred percent on board with that, because
Speaker 1: it is very true that the media will latch onto
Speaker 1: these case studies that are objectionably and sort of we
Speaker 1: can come to consensus, as you were saying, like this
Speaker 1: is obviously objectionable. Then again, the media is constantly promoting
Speaker 1: very divisive takes on race, and so is the left
Speaker 1: through some of these DEI programs that Ronda Santis, for instance,
Speaker 1: response to, and people may not agree with their responses,
Speaker 1: but there are a whole lot of parents, whether they're
Speaker 1: black or white or brown, that have a problem with
Speaker 1: what is being taught about race and what is being
Speaker 1: taught from DEI departments managers in corporate America, and a
Speaker 1: lot of that was promoted by the left and by
Speaker 1: the media. And so it is always rich to me
Speaker 1: when we talk about a situation like this, much much
Speaker 1: more than we talk about the negatives of situations like those,
Speaker 1: And that was today's episode of Two White People about race. Point.
Speaker 1: You've got an immigration point, mane, what's your point today? Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. Well, there's important but underappreciated reasons. The media
Speaker 1: thinks completely the wrong way when it comes to immigration.
Speaker 1: They take the narrative of the Chamber of Commerce and
Speaker 1: far left Democrats an interesting marriage as gospel. This is
Speaker 1: really great for businesses and cartels, it is terrible for migrants.
Speaker 1: Why are journalists and Democrats not in absolute uproar over
Speaker 1: this video of AHHS secretary Javier Bessara comparing migrant children
Speaker 1: to car parts. If Henry Ford had seen this in
Speaker 1: his plan, he would have never become famous and rich.
Speaker 1: This is not the way you do an assembly line.
Speaker 1: And okay, and kids aren't wait just I get it.
Speaker 1: But we could do far better than this. It's not
Speaker 1: the way you do an assembly line. Well, it's true.
Speaker 1: This video from last summer was leaked to The New
Speaker 1: York Times, a media outlet, and published as part of
Speaker 1: an excellent expose. The paper ran on migrant children working
Speaker 1: in violation of labor laws by major corporations. But if
Speaker 1: Bisarah worked for Trump, that quote would be blanketing the airwaves.
Speaker 1: It has not to say the least. I think it
Speaker 1: got one question in a White House press briefing, and
Speaker 1: that is wrong because even the most charitable reading of
Speaker 1: Bessara's quote exposes the most fundamental problem with this administration's
Speaker 1: immigration policy. If we're being charitable, Bisarah is arguing that
Speaker 1: kids need to be moved out of detention facilities efficiently
Speaker 1: for their own safety. This is already a dubious argument, though,
Speaker 1: because that efficiency, as the Time story shows, is making
Speaker 1: children less safe. As Hannah Dryer reported, quote, while HHS
Speaker 1: checks on all miners by call calling them a month
Speaker 1: after they began living with their sponsors, data obtained by
Speaker 1: the Time showed that over the last two years, the
Speaker 1: agency could not reach more than eighty five thousand children. Overall,
Speaker 1: the agency lost immediate contact with a third of migrant children.
Speaker 1: Dryer added, quote, the federal government hires child welfare agencies
Speaker 1: to track some miners who are deemed to be at
Speaker 1: high risk, but caseworkers at those agencies said that HHS
Speaker 1: regularly ignored obvious signs of labor exploitation. That's a characterization
Speaker 1: the agency disputed. According to Drier, children calling an HHS
Speaker 1: hotline to report labor violations were never getting responses from
Speaker 1: the agency. Of course, there's plenty of blame to go
Speaker 1: around heartside, a company that supplied contract manufacturers for major
Speaker 1: food companies conceded to the Times that it didn't verify
Speaker 1: worker ages through a national Social Security check at just
Speaker 1: this grand rapids plant implicated in child labor and the
Speaker 1: Time story. But think about that. The two biggest benefic
Speaker 1: beneficiaries of HHS's policy are major American corporations in native
Speaker 1: cheap labor and cartels in Mexico. Well, why the cartels,
Speaker 1: As the Times reported, the children quote send cash back
Speaker 1: to their families while often being in debt to their
Speaker 1: sponsors for smuggling fees, rent, and then living expenses. Every
Speaker 1: single unaccompanied minor that crosses our border pays a cartel
Speaker 1: smuggling fee. This is really really simple. More migration leads
Speaker 1: to more money for cartels. In most cases, they aren't
Speaker 1: sneaking kids across the border either. They're trafficking them up
Speaker 1: through Central America and Mexico, where they turn themselves into
Speaker 1: authorities and begin the legal asylum process. So legalizing this
Speaker 1: migration would not automatically solve the problem, because migrants from
Speaker 1: Central America would still need to travel through cartel controlled
Speaker 1: Mexico unless they could afford flights, and even if they could,
Speaker 1: you can bet cartels would try to make them pay
Speaker 1: for access to those too. This is now human trafficking,
Speaker 1: as big business and cartels will not give it up easily.
Speaker 1: The time story is also clear that most of the
Speaker 1: two hundred fifty thousand unaccompanied minors we know have crossed
Speaker 1: in the last two years are economic migrants. Central American
Speaker 1: politics were not magically more stable under Donald Trump. The
Speaker 1: surgeon economic migration, as Todd Bensman says, it's like a faucet.
Speaker 1: The water is always there, but it doesn't flow from
Speaker 1: the tap until you turn it on. Joe Biden's policies
Speaker 1: turned it on. This is what the media misses. Biden
Speaker 1: has incrementally expanded humanitarian parole, most recently via the CBP
Speaker 1: one app to reduce the bad optics of illegal crossing numbers.
Speaker 1: So Bensman estimates about thirty five percent of one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty monthly paroleees get sent back. Those odds are
Speaker 1: strong enough to draw economic migrants up to our border.
Speaker 1: In staggering numbers. That's why we're seeing increases. We believe
Speaker 1: that CBP one has encouraged migration. That is a quote
Speaker 1: from a Tijuana migration official to Telemundo in February quote,
Speaker 1: it looks easier to have an appointment. Yes, we have
Speaker 1: seen people who arrive with that expectation. There you go.
Speaker 1: Shelters report being flooded, and as they will say, it's
Speaker 1: not just because of the pandemic economy in these countries,
Speaker 1: it's because of this administration. So it's no wonder HHS
Speaker 1: is completely incapable of handling these kids safely. These are
Speaker 1: impossible numbers for any country to handle with respect and dignity,
Speaker 1: both to the migrants and to their own citizens. We
Speaker 1: do need immigration for economic reasons. We should absolutely offer
Speaker 1: as much political asylum as we safely can. For moral reasons,
Speaker 1: and yes, the US historically destabilized Central American Mexico with
Speaker 1: drugs and coups. We should help these countries, we should
Speaker 1: help their people. But what's happening now is a moral
Speaker 1: disaster fueled by the cowardice of American politicians and the
Speaker 1: ignorance of American media. They are the useful idiots of
Speaker 1: big business in cartels. Thousands of kids every single month
Speaker 1: are being abused on their journeys north, some of them
Speaker 1: dying then entering a country where their legal future is
Speaker 1: completely uncertain and unstable. Also, Democrats can claim some faux
Speaker 1: moral high ground, the ignorant media is more than happy
Speaker 1: to give them. Our policies need to be clear, lawful,
Speaker 1: and uniform. Asylum needs to be enforced, not preemptively assumed
Speaker 1: for people whose claims are obviously dubious at the expense
Speaker 1: of those who are real. That's the only way to
Speaker 1: reduce the wave of economic migration that's fueling cartel power,
Speaker 1: hurting desperate people, and devastating our bureaucracy's ability to handle
Speaker 1: this with humanity and fairness. Ryan, what is your point today?
Speaker 1: So I wanted to talk a little bit about the
Speaker 1: Section seven oh two controversy that we've been that I
Speaker 1: hope people have been following, because it's the seven oh two,
Speaker 1: as people may or may not know, is referred to
Speaker 1: as kind of the crown jewel of the surveillance state.
Speaker 1: It is the authority that gives the NSA what they
Speaker 1: call a legal rationale to do their most intensive spying
Speaker 1: and surveillance, but it is supposed to bar them from
Speaker 1: uh spying on Americans essentially, And so there was a
Speaker 1: big report in Wired and we could put this up.
Speaker 1: This is a post from Warren Davidson, a Republican congressman
Speaker 1: who has been very good on this issue, sharing sharing
Speaker 1: this this Wired report that that found that, according to
Speaker 1: a declassified audit of the of the Section seven oh
Speaker 1: two authority execution, the government had searched the name of
Speaker 1: a US congressman attempting to find some type of connection
Speaker 1: to foreign influence. This is within the within the kind
Speaker 1: of surveillance world, an explosive revelation because it goes beyond
Speaker 1: just an example of them actually searching, you know, and
Speaker 1: surveilling an American citizen, but actually an American congressman. We
Speaker 1: don't know, you know who that who that congressman is,
Speaker 1: We don't know what the context is. But the FBI
Speaker 1: and the Department of Justice has finally responded. So yesterday
Speaker 1: the Assistant Attorney General, Matthew Olsen spoke at the Brookings
Speaker 1: Institution and he addressed this. So I'll just read this
Speaker 1: and do this for the podcast people too, so if
Speaker 1: they can't read it on screen. So he said, every
Speaker 1: compliance incident matters, of course, but incidents involving US person
Speaker 1: information are especially damaging to public trust. Congress authorized the
Speaker 1: government to collect foreign intelligence under section seven oh two
Speaker 1: without obtaining individual court orders because seven oh two targets
Speaker 1: non US persons who are outside the United States. While
Speaker 1: the intelligence community has collected the foreign intelligence information because
Speaker 1: of the need to protect national security, we still need
Speaker 1: strong guard rails when the intelligence community searches this data
Speaker 1: for information about Americans. He goes on to be clear,
Speaker 1: it is critically important that the government is able to
Speaker 1: do exactly that. When we examine seven oh two information
Speaker 1: using query terms associated with US persons, we're often trying
Speaker 1: to identify US person victims of foreign hacking or spying.
Speaker 1: That's what lets us warn and protect them. If we
Speaker 1: are to keep protecting Americans from escalating cyber and espionage threats,
Speaker 1: we need to maintain the capacity to conduct US person queries.
Speaker 1: This is especially true for the FBI, which is responsible
Speaker 1: for protecting the homeland from national security threats emanating from overseas.
Speaker 1: So what Olsen is suggesting to the public here is
Speaker 1: that they were actually spying on this member of Congress
Speaker 1: for their own good to protect them. If that were
Speaker 1: the case, you would expect that they would have you
Speaker 1: would say, perhaps they would have leaked this to the
Speaker 1: media because they're always you know, looking for you know,
Speaker 1: positive coverage of this surveillance authority so that when it
Speaker 1: comes back up for reauthorization, they can point, hey, look
Speaker 1: look what we were able to do. There was this
Speaker 1: spying operation. They were even coming after this hapless member
Speaker 1: of Congress, and we busted it up. We let them
Speaker 1: know we solved this problem, or they would have at
Speaker 1: least brief Congress and said, hey, look, just so you're not,
Speaker 1: you know, freaked out here, like we ran a query
Speaker 1: on a member of Congress. But here is exactly why
Speaker 1: we did it, Like here is the spir ring, here's
Speaker 1: the country that we suspected was spying on them. Here
Speaker 1: is here's what they were trying to get out of them,
Speaker 1: and we uncovered it. This is this was the result
Speaker 1: of it. But we just wanted to be transparent about
Speaker 1: it because it did involve not just a US person
Speaker 1: but a US member of Congress. No evidence that they
Speaker 1: carried out that briefing. Instead, it got found in this
Speaker 1: audit wound up in this report which was declassified, which
Speaker 1: Wired uncovered and wrote about, and so now now we
Speaker 1: know about it, and now after the fact they're saying, well, oh,
Speaker 1: actually that was for the round good while acknowledging in
Speaker 1: the report they say, Okay, this was actually illegal, and
Speaker 1: they claim it was based on a quote misunderstanding of
Speaker 1: the law. So there's nothing wrong with the law, they
Speaker 1: just kind of misunderstood it in all of their good
Speaker 1: intentions to try to help this member of Congress. I
Speaker 1: can't imagine that there's anybody listening that finds any of
Speaker 1: any of that explanation credible. You know, at least they're
Speaker 1: feeling enough pressure that they've had to go to Brookings
Speaker 1: and talk about it. But this is this is going
Speaker 1: to heat up over the next several months, you know,
Speaker 1: as as this as this authority expires, because if it expires,
Speaker 1: it it then throws into question the nssay's entire surveillance program.
Speaker 1: And then and then it requires the NSA to come
Speaker 1: back to Congress, which they often do and say, well,
Speaker 1: we actually have these other authorities, we can continue our
Speaker 1: spying legally without seven or two. And then then you're like,
Speaker 1: I'm not so sure about that let's show me those authorities.
Speaker 1: Let's let's let's examine those too. So what do you
Speaker 1: think of the potential for this to have some genuine
Speaker 1: policy and cations when it comes to surveillance or I
Speaker 1: also sometimes get the feeling that the public has just
Speaker 1: kind of moved on. They're like, they're just listening to
Speaker 1: everything all the time, and who cares. Yeah, although at
Speaker 1: the same time, I think people are hyper aware of
Speaker 1: the kind of expansion of government post COVID. But to
Speaker 1: your point about policy implications, you can see when this
Speaker 1: is affecting a member of Congress who was sort of
Speaker 1: had that nanny state approach from the from the surveillance
Speaker 1: for their own good, how members of Congress might then
Speaker 1: get freaked out. And I'm sure they assume, or they
Speaker 1: should assume, if they're not stupid, that their communication is
Speaker 1: basically all compromised, whether by a foreign government or by
Speaker 1: our own government. That's probably a safe assumption, whether or
Speaker 1: not it's true. In every case, you should probably assume
Speaker 1: it because you're just so vulnerable in that situation. But
Speaker 1: to see the government citing it in the way that
Speaker 1: you framed it, or in the way that they framed it,
Speaker 1: and you point out is powerful because that's going to
Speaker 1: make members of Congress feel undermined. I have absolutely no
Speaker 1: opimism that they'll fail to reauthorize seven oh two, because
Speaker 1: you mentioned they love to trot out anytime it's in jeopardy,
Speaker 1: they trot out all of these case studies. They say
Speaker 1: without seven oh two, we never could have stopped this
Speaker 1: was the Times Square bombing is one that they point to.
Speaker 1: I think we've never They all fall apart under scrutiny,
Speaker 1: like you peel them back a little bit and you're like, no, actually,
Speaker 1: none of this is true. And if you couldn't prevent
Speaker 1: it through other means, develop other means, find other means,
Speaker 1: be better instead of just taking the shortcut of creating
Speaker 1: the seven oh two database, which is basically like, if
Speaker 1: I'm not mistaken, they tap into servers like Google and
Speaker 1: like to create this massive, massive database that's encrypted until
Speaker 1: they search it. Basically, it's just the most obscene and
Speaker 1: they say it's not mass collection because it's not collection
Speaker 1: until they search, right right, outrageous, plugging into underground cables
Speaker 1: exactly like that sort of thing, yeah, like the literal wires. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: So I'm not optimistic at all that they'll decline to
Speaker 1: reauthorize it, because even if a situation like this comes
Speaker 1: up that I think does probably incense members of Congress,
Speaker 1: I can't see them building momentum to end Section seven
Speaker 1: oh two. When you're going to have a full court
Speaker 1: press from the intelligence community that has all of its
Speaker 1: buddies at the New York Times and MSNBC doing their bidding,
Speaker 1: that's going to say there's no way we can get
Speaker 1: rid of this. Everyone is going to be an immediate
Speaker 1: risk for a terrorist attack if we do. Good for
Speaker 1: Warren Davidson, you know, and other both Democrats and Republicans
Speaker 1: who are pushing on this, it's one of the rare
Speaker 1: kind of bipartisan efforts, but it's still a minority of
Speaker 1: the House. But up up next, we got Friend of
Speaker 1: the Show Philip Wegman, Is that right? That's right, Friend
Speaker 1: of the Show Philip Wegman, to talk about gain, a function,
Speaker 1: research and pretty big new discussion out of the White
Speaker 1: House this week. He asked a question to them. We're
Speaker 1: going to ask him about the question he asked the
Speaker 1: White House coming up next. The corporate press doesn't want
Speaker 1: to talk very much about gain of function research, but
Speaker 1: we will not stop covering it here, especially on the
Speaker 1: heels of the Department of Energies determination that there's a
Speaker 1: good probability the pandemic originated from a lab leak. Now
Speaker 1: Philip Wegman joins us. He is the White House reporter
Speaker 1: for Real Clear Politics, and he actually pressed the White
Speaker 1: House on that question this week and wrote about it
Speaker 1: for Real Clear Politics. We can put the story up
Speaker 1: on the screen. This is our first element. The White
Speaker 1: House told Philip that the Biden administration supports quote safe
Speaker 1: and secure gain of function research. Ryan over at the
Speaker 1: Intercept has been covering extensively whether gain of function research
Speaker 1: can ever be done safely and securely. Let's play the
Speaker 1: clip of phil pushing the White House on this question.
Speaker 1: Without weighing in one way or the other on orsion
Speaker 1: of the virus, you might clear that there's no consensus.
Speaker 1: Does the President believe though, that the reward out weighs
Speaker 1: the risk when it comes to gain of function research?
Speaker 1: Does a reward outweigh the risk when it comes to
Speaker 1: gain You're going to have to say that again. Does
Speaker 1: the President believe that this type of gain of functional
Speaker 1: research is proven? He believes that it's important to help
Speaker 1: prevent future pandemics, which means he understands that there has
Speaker 1: to be legitimate scientific research into the sources or potential
Speaker 1: sources of pandemics so that we understand it, so that
Speaker 1: we can prevent them and we can prevent them from happening. Obviously,
Speaker 1: but he also believes, and this is why he wants
Speaker 1: the whole of government effort here to understand it, that
Speaker 1: that research has to be done. It must be done
Speaker 1: in a safe and secure manners and as transparent as
Speaker 1: possible to the rest of the world, so people know
Speaker 1: what's going on. All right, Philip, you also reported this
Speaker 1: out with interviews. You got quotes from Marco Rubio. We
Speaker 1: can put the third element up with you got quotes
Speaker 1: from Rand Paul. You've been talking to the White House
Speaker 1: about safe and secure gain of function research. What does
Speaker 1: that mean for how this could be affecting where money goes,
Speaker 1: where money is steered in this administration. So, even as
Speaker 1: there's more evidence coming out from the US Energy Department
Speaker 1: and also the FBI that points in the direction of
Speaker 1: a potential lab laque scenario, the White House is agnostic
Speaker 1: on the origins of COVID. They say that there's no consensus,
Speaker 1: but meanwhile they still believe that in some cases gain
Speaker 1: of function research can be prudent. And the reason why
Speaker 1: I found this answer from Kirby so interesting is because
Speaker 1: it comes at a moment when the National Science Advisory
Speaker 1: Board has actually put forward new rules and regulations for
Speaker 1: how gain of function would be handled here in the
Speaker 1: United States, and essentially those rules and regulations they're sitting
Speaker 1: on the President's desk. We haven't heard from him yet,
Speaker 1: and Kirby's answer gives us the answer. Biden thinks that
Speaker 1: on occasion it can be worthwhile, and so it sounds
Speaker 1: like that means the new guidelines will probably be passed
Speaker 1: through and then money will be steered in that direction. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we'll see what the new rules actually entail. There's new
Speaker 1: regulations in terms of which type of labs can handle
Speaker 1: this sort of thing. There's reporting regulations currently. Though what's
Speaker 1: alarming is that there's generally a patchwork of regulations in
Speaker 1: this country when it comes to how labs handle this
Speaker 1: type of research. And that's one of the reasons why
Speaker 1: in twenty fourteen, the Obama administration, because of some concerns
Speaker 1: over avian flu, said wait a minute, we're just gonna
Speaker 1: have a moratorium or taxpayer funding for this sort of thing.
Speaker 1: Three years later, it's the Trump administration that lifts that moratorium. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I wanted to ask you about that twenty fourteen ban,
Speaker 1: because that pause was implemented in the face of stiff
Speaker 1: opposition from doctor Anthony Fauci, who argued publicly and privately
Speaker 1: that the pause was inappropriate and it would harm future
Speaker 1: pandemic prevention efforts. It was it's then lifted Faucu was
Speaker 1: able to move money to this lab and to other
Speaker 1: gain of function research. So you have an entire set
Speaker 1: of officials, many of whom were there in twenty fourteen
Speaker 1: when that I think correct decision was made. So you
Speaker 1: ever talk to them about why it was the right
Speaker 1: decision in twenty fourteen to pause gain and function research,
Speaker 1: and now it's the right decision to allow it. And
Speaker 1: in the interim we at minimum we may have had
Speaker 1: a gain of function related pandemic produced by a lab
Speaker 1: doing that kind of work. So what's fascinated about this
Speaker 1: is that you see a lot of the same names
Speaker 1: and organizations pop up again and again. In twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: when Francis Collins, who is the acting director of NIH
Speaker 1: lifts the moratorium, Who does he think the National Science
Speaker 1: Advisory Board, who is putting together the new rules and
Speaker 1: regulations that are currently in the White House Office of
Speaker 1: Science and Technology. Oh, it's the same folks. And now
Speaker 1: that the moratorium, you know, looks like it's going to
Speaker 1: be lifted, looks like there's going to be more money
Speaker 1: steered in this direction. Even then, with increased rules and
Speaker 1: regulations that it seems the White House to signal they're
Speaker 1: on board with, you still have some of these scientists saying,
Speaker 1: wait a minute, this is going to stand in the
Speaker 1: way of free inquiry, This is going to hurt our
Speaker 1: research efforts. We need this so that we can prevent
Speaker 1: the next outbreak. But the fundamental question here is how
Speaker 1: much risk are we willing to take when it comes
Speaker 1: to this. Is it ten percent chance, five percent chance
Speaker 1: of a once in a century global pandemic, a one
Speaker 1: percent chance of killing more than a million Americans, you know,
Speaker 1: if things get out of hand. And the answer that
Speaker 1: we got from the administration is that they think that,
Speaker 1: you know, this can be done safely. It can be
Speaker 1: done securely here in the United States. Of course, though
Speaker 1: you know that's the United States. Our moves create, you know,
Speaker 1: a impetus for other nations with you know, more lax
Speaker 1: regulation to go forward with their own. And I think
Speaker 1: that's one of the most stunning revelations from the pandemic
Speaker 1: and looking into the origins of it, is how byzantine
Speaker 1: the system of you US dollar allocation is in other countries.
Speaker 1: As you say, it's a patchwork, but it's a patrick
Speaker 1: in our country, let alone other countries. And so giving
Speaker 1: an okay to gain a function from the Biden administration,
Speaker 1: we like to say here, you have not earned reprieve
Speaker 1: from another pandemic. We have not earned time off from pandemics.
Speaker 1: This could happen again at any time if the Lablik
Speaker 1: theory is correct, as the Department of Energy recently said
Speaker 1: was likely the case, and they're in conjunction with the FBI,
Speaker 1: which we're going to get to in just a second.
Speaker 1: If you have that, that means that you haven't earned
Speaker 1: any time off from pandemics. This could potentially be happening
Speaker 1: any day, even though we feel like we've earned the
Speaker 1: time off from it. So what did Republican senators say
Speaker 1: when you took this question? To them after getting that
Speaker 1: response from the Administration. Their critique is much of what
Speaker 1: you said. They are of the opinion that the White
Speaker 1: House doesn't earn any authority to sign off on new
Speaker 1: rules and regulations until they actually give a reasoned account
Speaker 1: for where the pandemic came from. Senator Marco Rubio tells
Speaker 1: me that the White House would have a lot more
Speaker 1: credibility on the question of regulation. We can pushed Marco
Speaker 1: Rubio's quote up there, if you know they had been
Speaker 1: more forthright about you know, where this came from. Obviously, Republicans,
Speaker 1: they've made an assessment in their mind, and more or
Speaker 1: less at this point, Senator, Republicans are saying that they
Speaker 1: want a complete and total moratorium on any funding to
Speaker 1: a university or institution that does this type of research.
Speaker 1: To go back to the point that Kirby's making about
Speaker 1: the need to prevent future pandemics, because I think that
Speaker 1: is that's the most powerful argument on the other side
Speaker 1: of the question. But it always strikes me that the
Speaker 1: case of Wuhan, because let's imagine that we were the
Speaker 1: NIH is funding research in Wuhan in order to detect
Speaker 1: a pandemic early so that it could stop the spread
Speaker 1: of that pandemic. A pandemic can start anywhere in the world.
Speaker 1: It happened to start within just a few miles of
Speaker 1: this lab. And if they did not accidentally produce this pandemic,
Speaker 1: it happened right underneath their noses, walking distance from their lab,
Speaker 1: and they weren't able to prevent it. So if even
Speaker 1: in that scenario, that funding doesn't prevent a pandemic, how
Speaker 1: is it going to stop a pandemic? If if it's
Speaker 1: if there's some natural origin somewhere else. And so I'm
Speaker 1: curious when you're in the White House press room with
Speaker 1: other White House reporters whether or not they see that contradiction,
Speaker 1: and they and they're concerned about, you know, whether or
Speaker 1: not the White House is kind of slow walking into
Speaker 1: a into another one. Ryan's getting a call from Eco
Speaker 1: Health Alliances right now. Peter, doesA just come first of all, Ryan,
Speaker 1: I mean, it sounds a lot to me like you're
Speaker 1: questioning science and that's not something that you should do. No,
Speaker 1: in all seriousness, Look, one would expect that there would
Speaker 1: be more of a broad conversation about the prudence of
Speaker 1: doing this type of research. And that's why I actually
Speaker 1: really appreciate the straight answer to a straightforward question that
Speaker 1: Kirby gave me. He's laid out the administration's argument on that,
Speaker 1: and you know, because of that, people on both sides
Speaker 1: of this can either agree or disagree. But other than
Speaker 1: some of the really emotionally charged arguments that we've seen
Speaker 1: during the pandemic, no one has said, all right, you know,
Speaker 1: let's actually take a moment and show why this does matter,
Speaker 1: going back to that fundamental question of how much risk
Speaker 1: are we willing to accept. You know, if this in
Speaker 1: fact did come from you know, that lab in Wuhan,
Speaker 1: then it would seem all right, show me the counterfactual,
Speaker 1: show me the pandemics that perhaps you stopped, or or
Speaker 1: the illnesses that you somehow lessened. And I think that
Speaker 1: as a result of you know, first the FBI analysis,
Speaker 1: now the Department of Energy, there is more of a
Speaker 1: willingness by the press to take these questions seriously. And frankly,
Speaker 1: you know your show has the receipts on this. A
Speaker 1: number of corporate media outlets they said, all right, you know,
Speaker 1: we have our we have our our narrative here, we're
Speaker 1: not strained from it. And uh, you know, I think
Speaker 1: that that's a tremendous disservice because some of the things
Speaker 1: that we've seen come out of reporting of the interception
Speaker 1: and BuzzFeed is that a lot of these scientists who said, uh,
Speaker 1: you know this is this is naturally occurring in private.
Speaker 1: Uh you know, the authors of the Nature magazine letter,
Speaker 1: they were saying, wellether, it's a fifty to fifty chance
Speaker 1: whether or not it was the product of a of
Speaker 1: a lab. And they were getting tax per dollars for
Speaker 1: making that discrepancy in public and private, which is just
Speaker 1: shameful in and of itself. Let's move on to a
Speaker 1: new interview that Brett Behar conducted with FBI Director Christopher
Speaker 1: Ray where this came up. We can play the clip
Speaker 1: now an energy study that says it's likely to have
Speaker 1: come from a lab leak, although the confidence slow it
Speaker 1: cites the FBI. What is the determination by the FBI? So,
Speaker 1: as you note, Brett, the FBI has for quite some
Speaker 1: time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are
Speaker 1: most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan. That aired
Speaker 1: on Tuesday night, Philip is there, do you have any
Speaker 1: sense as you're talking to people in the White House
Speaker 1: that there's tension between the FBI and the White House,
Speaker 1: which is continuing to use this line that there is
Speaker 1: no consensus, which is true, there is no consensus that
Speaker 1: it was a lab leak, despite the fact that there
Speaker 1: does seem to be a fact pattern in one direction.
Speaker 1: Is there at tension between the White House and the
Speaker 1: FBI the Department of Energy this week on this question
Speaker 1: or are they sort of working together and dealing with it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm not certain why the Department of Energy decided to
Speaker 1: leak that report right the Wall Street Journal at this moment.
Speaker 1: Later during that same interview, Ray says flat out though,
Speaker 1: that the Chinese are being less than helpful, less than
Speaker 1: forthright in you know, their analysis of the initial situation.
Speaker 1: You know, they're not helping investigators get to the bottom
Speaker 1: of this. And I think that that is hugely significant
Speaker 1: because the administration has said, you know, we're not going
Speaker 1: to be able to really have a clear sense of
Speaker 1: where this started until the Chinese began cooperating. And when
Speaker 1: you used to press them on this question of you know,
Speaker 1: did the President actually bring this up personally with g
Speaker 1: did he press him to be more transparent, they wouldn't answer.
Speaker 1: What we heard from the White House last you know,
Speaker 1: just this week though, is that Kirby said that President
Speaker 1: Biden actually pressed g personally when they were in Bali
Speaker 1: to be more transparent, to cooperate more. I think the
Speaker 1: fact of the matter is, though we have a good
Speaker 1: sense of what the Chinese motivation is here, and they're
Speaker 1: probably not going to cooperate. And so I think that
Speaker 1: as the question remains open, I think that tension will
Speaker 1: also remain within the administration and as many as the
Speaker 1: researcher many of the research will tell you too that
Speaker 1: the US is still not being completely transparent about that.
Speaker 1: There are still things know that the that the n
Speaker 1: i H is holding and other research laboratories are holding
Speaker 1: that could shed some light on it. So so the
Speaker 1: blaming China at this point does strike me as related
Speaker 1: to the timing. I mean, do you think that this
Speaker 1: is just all right, Well, this whole balloon thing was embarrassing,
Speaker 1: uh and we're annoyed at the way that the Chinese
Speaker 1: did this, uh egg all over our face. We can't
Speaker 1: even find their balloons after we shot them down. So
Speaker 1: the depths of Huron like we get let the let
Speaker 1: the Energy Department put their thing out there as it
Speaker 1: was in CNN, which you know, it was a CNN
Speaker 1: report that the Energy Department, right, but I think they
Speaker 1: I think pretty sure they had the scoop on that one.
Speaker 1: I believe the Wall Street Journal is the one that
Speaker 1: that got all of us. I think got it first.
Speaker 1: But I mean the journal got it first in in
Speaker 1: in what I've seen. But you're right, I mean the
Speaker 1: political motivations here, obvious Republicans are always going to want
Speaker 1: to tie bad things around the neck of Beijing and
Speaker 1: the Biden administration after they were humiliated with balloon Gate.
Speaker 1: I think that they also, you know, perhaps face the
Speaker 1: same temptation. We've seen a confluence of both Republican and
Speaker 1: democratic concerns when it comes to China, and perhaps that's
Speaker 1: one of the reasons why what was verboten just a
Speaker 1: couple of years ago to talk about is now seen
Speaker 1: as you know, a very real possibility. Well, and if
Speaker 1: there is a lab lak, if that, let's just say
Speaker 1: that that's true, we're implicated in that, and the gain
Speaker 1: of function is implicated in that. And so it sounded
Speaker 1: to me like John Kirby didn't really want to answer
Speaker 1: the question that you asked. He did, though to your point,
Speaker 1: he did ultimately give that answer. He said, you know, basically,
Speaker 1: it's a fancy way of saying, yes, we believe that
Speaker 1: gain of function can be done safely and securely, but
Speaker 1: they don't seem to really want to confront that head on. Yeah,
Speaker 1: even before the pandemic, this was massively controversial among scientists
Speaker 1: and academics that are that this is going to be
Speaker 1: even more charged now that you have a million Americans
Speaker 1: dead as a result. I mean that goes without saying.
Speaker 1: And Chris Ray talked about that, and what's troublesome is
Speaker 1: how quickly the nonsense propaganda works. It's works its way
Speaker 1: into this and moving away from a genuine kind of
Speaker 1: intellectual exploration of of how this happens that we can
Speaker 1: prevent it from happening again. Chris Ray goes on to
Speaker 1: say in that in that clip, he says, and you
Speaker 1: know there there was you know, there was a Chinese
Speaker 1: military operation with the end it killed ended up killing
Speaker 1: millions of Americans, as as it is the intent of
Speaker 1: that kind of an operations. You know, some quote along
Speaker 1: those lines. It's like, so immediately going in this uber
Speaker 1: hawkish direction without raising without asking the question of Okay, well,
Speaker 1: you're saying that this lab was a Chinese military operational
Speaker 1: the intent of killing millions of Americans? Why were why
Speaker 1: was the US funding it? Right? Like that? Yeah, that'd
Speaker 1: be kind of a basic follow up question if was
Speaker 1: it our intent then to kill millions of Americans? Right?
Speaker 1: And even even as more information has has been released
Speaker 1: as a result of Foyas and that we've been able
Speaker 1: to review some of these leaked emails, doctor Anthony Fauci
Speaker 1: continues to stand by what he told UH lawmakers, which
Speaker 1: is the NIH has not ever funded gain a function
Speaker 1: research at the woe Hunds student virology. Certainly, you know,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of new information that counters that, but
Speaker 1: he's fudging the definition. Yes, yeah, that the definition. There's
Speaker 1: been a lot of games that have been played UH
Speaker 1: in in the last couple of months and years. But
Speaker 1: I think that even before we get to the question
Speaker 1: of intent, of whether or not this was some science
Speaker 1: experiment that you know, was designed to harm people, I
Speaker 1: think that, you know, we should be able to have
Speaker 1: a more basic conversation, which is, even in the best
Speaker 1: case scenario, is this prudent and that's why, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm fascinated to see the answer that the Biden administration
Speaker 1: comes up with. Yeah. Yeah. And the problem with kind
Speaker 1: of lying about this and and suppressing an honest investigation
Speaker 1: into it is because then it does open the door
Speaker 1: for other people to then push it even further. Because
Speaker 1: now if you say, now, if you say, well, the FBI,
Speaker 1: Department of Energy, there's the other intelligence agencies say it
Speaker 1: actually may have come from this lab, then you're going
Speaker 1: to have people even further out who are like, okay, well,
Speaker 1: then I think it was actually intentional and this was
Speaker 1: a bioweapons program and it was released it was released intentionally.
Speaker 1: And then and then the you know, people don't have
Speaker 1: an authority to come in and say, well, no, we okay,
Speaker 1: we were wrong the last two or three years about
Speaker 1: what we were saying, but now believe us when we
Speaker 1: tell you that we believe that this was an accident,
Speaker 1: which is which is my belief. I believe it was.
Speaker 1: It was released accidentally. There's I don't see any evidence
Speaker 1: that that it was done purposefully. But when you have
Speaker 1: no when there's no credibility left, it opens the door
Speaker 1: for people to believe that. And then might move us
Speaker 1: closer to some type of hostility, which and how many
Speaker 1: times do we have to relive this episode that we
Speaker 1: have during the pandemic. Right, obviously all of our bias
Speaker 1: is towards more transparency, But when you were not forthright
Speaker 1: with the American public, and if you hedge, whether it's
Speaker 1: a noble lie or it's an insidious one, that creates
Speaker 1: space for individuals to assume the worst case scenario, to
Speaker 1: pump things up to more than they actually are. And
Speaker 1: that is, you know, the enemy of reasonable discourse, and
Speaker 1: it doesn't serve anyone. Well, that's why I think that
Speaker 1: you know, if you give a straight answer, even to
Speaker 1: a controversial question, that provides, you know, the framework for
Speaker 1: an honest discussion rather than something that gets taken away
Speaker 1: by both the left and the right. My last question
Speaker 1: is just in terms of the funding, whether it's domestically
Speaker 1: or internationally, because it is the point you made earlier
Speaker 1: to pick up on the safe and secure designation that
Speaker 1: Kirby says. We're able to make and do this safely
Speaker 1: and securely gain a function research, but do it in
Speaker 1: a contained and responsible way. Would any of that involve
Speaker 1: foreign funding? Still, you know diverting in this byzantine way
Speaker 1: to this grantee that then some contracts this lab overseas.
Speaker 1: Are there safeguards for where this work can be done
Speaker 1: in the Biden administration's opinion, does that involve like keeping
Speaker 1: this domestic or banning foreign funding in any way. So
Speaker 1: the new recommendations that are in front of the White
Speaker 1: House Office of Science and Technology, we're going to see
Speaker 1: which ones they actually sign off on and what makes
Speaker 1: the final cut. I'm absolutely interested to see whether or
Speaker 1: not there are any prohibitions on domestic versus international funding. Certainly,
Speaker 1: you know that Republicans are going to raise a stink
Speaker 1: over this based off of what we've been learning about
Speaker 1: EcoHealth potentially being used as an intermediary for some of
Speaker 1: this type of research. But I think that at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, there's going to be a strong
Speaker 1: incentive for the administration not to do anything that all
Speaker 1: looks like it could contribute again to a potential once
Speaker 1: in a central pandemic. I think that they are going
Speaker 1: to be much more cautious, not only when it comes
Speaker 1: to research here in this country, but certainly cautious about
Speaker 1: sending an American dollars elsewhere at least that's what I
Speaker 1: would hope. Well, you can read Philip's story in Real
Speaker 1: Claire Politics. You can follow his work there as well.
Speaker 1: Philip Wegman, White House Reporter for RCP, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for joining Counterpoints, Thank you for having me, Thanks
Speaker 1: for coming by. See you in the White House press er.
Speaker 1: I've been there a while and start coming back their
Speaker 1: buds in the pressure right. Well, that does it for
Speaker 1: today's edition of Counterpoints. We're on the super fun two
Speaker 1: shot here in the tight camera. There you go, Ryan
Speaker 1: that you still have a little bit of a fish hangover,
Speaker 1: I imagine, But I hope that feels great. Well ever
Speaker 1: felt better, I believe that. Actually, we'll be back next
Speaker 1: Wednesday with more Counterpoints. Thanks so much for tuning in.
Speaker 1: I see you guys in